The Importance of Digitalization for the Sustainability of the Food Supply Chain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article covers the importance of digitalization in the sustainability of the food supply chain. Specific comments are given below to improve the quality of the text.
-You should not use Abbreviations in the Title of the article. Please write "food supply chain" instead of "FSC".
-Did you use any software for the design as well as the analysis of the data? In case you have used, please mention it to support the validity of your findings.
-You should mention the equations you have used to make the calculations of the values presented in the tables (coefficients etc).
-Please decrease the length of the Conclusions section. About one paragraph summarizing the main findings and their importance should be enough.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
all suggestions and comments have been incorporated into the text. See the word document in attach and paragraphs in red color in manuscript text.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to thank MDPI and the editor for giving me the opportunity to review this article. However, when reading the article, I had the feeling of being faced with a work done for a particular case that has been attempted to generalize to the FSC, which, in general, is very distant from the casuistry presented.
In the literature review, the authors have constructed their arguments using a methodology that could be called "cherry picking", i.e. selecting what is of interest from one author and avoiding the rest. In line 77 they say that FSC is disorganized and shows a lack of communication between farmers and consumers, i.e. reducing in their approach the FSC to the minimum expression: Who decides? Who buys? What product are we considering? packaged? third range? fourth range? processed or natural? etc. and concluding in lines 81 and "following that it is due to insufficient modern technology ....." It is to ignore the real dimension and variety of the FSC.
It should be have in mind that the FSC of fresh fruit and vegetable products is one of the most dynamic and innovative chains at all levels, subject to exhaustive legislation and with a high level of technology in some of its production processes (robots to pick or manipulate products; networks to control temperature and water supply, etc.); an aspect that conditions what is set out in the paper. This leads us to suggest that the authors should narrow down their field of research.
It is not very serious the paragraph of line 102 in which it states "based on the aspects presented through a systematic review of the literature it is possible to identify the following indicators ..." How has this systematic review been carried out? What was the objective of the systematic review? How was it carried out?
I think that the different indicators should be analyzed more critically, if we look for example at the "food safety and security" in the discussion appear aspects such as the case of contamination that in some FSC are very ocasional but on the other hand quite coomon if we deal with fresh meat/fish, it´s obvious the study rely on the product that authors didn´t consider in their study, things are mixed depending on which product of the FSC does not make sense. This criterion has not been sized.
At no time in the paper is there any mention of fundamental concepts in FSC such as the Forrester or Bullwhip effects and their approaches such as VMI (Vendor Managed Inventory), when this is the aspect on which the paper is based to justify the digitization of FSC.
I do not understand what the Hypotheses reflected in section 3 have to do with the FSC, I believe that the hypotheses are not justified.
The conclusions are not supported by the research presented in the paper. For example it states that FSC is facing increasing challenges in the global market, and from its inability to respond to those challenges adequately, where is it studied?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
all suggestions and comments have been incorporated into the text. See the word document in attach and paragraphs in red color in manuscript text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Food supply chains are also vital in ensuring food safety and traceability of products, meaning both manufacturers and consumers can easily trace food back to its origins. For manufacturers, this is needed if product recalls or withdrawals are required and for consumers, it means that they can understand the origin of their food and how it has been produced.
Avoid using abbreviations in the title “FSC” use it complete
A systematic review of the literature defined the most common indicators significant for the functioning of the FSC. Empirical research examined the influence of given indicators on FSC” the authors need to clear is that article or review? If it is an article, add some numerical data
Keywords, delete the abbreviation
Line 24, add the citation [1-5] at the end of the sentence, check throughout the manuscript
Line 48, use the abbreviation directly, it is indicated before
Line 51, 106 no need for italic, check throughout the manuscript
Add the objectives of the study at the end of introduction
Some language and structure errors need to be revised
Lines 179-185, move at the end of introduction
Line 193, what do you mean with H1
Merge tables 5 and 7
Establish model to predict the contamination either chemical or microbial through the FSC
Add some discussion with recent citations
Reduce conclusion, avoid repeated results
Check the outputs of all refernces
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
all suggestions and comments have been incorporated into the text. See the word document in attach and paragraphs in red color in manuscript text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript has met the acceptance criteria of the journal and I have no further comments on it. Good luck.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
all suggestions and comments by the other reviewers have been incorporated into the text. See the paragraphs in red color.
Thank you for your contribution as a reviewer for this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript can be accepted
